U.S., Canada harmonize perimeter security approach
Published 27 May 2011 No other two countries in the world have a larger volume of trade between them as do the United States and Canada; in the first eleven month of 2010, for example, that trade between the two countries reached $480 billion; that trade -- and, especially, significant growth of that volume of trade -- have been hampered by ever tighter security arrangements the United States has been implementing along the U.S.-Canada border since the 9/11 terrorist attacks; the main reason the United States has insisted on beefing up border security is that Canadian immigration and customs laws have been judged to be not up to what the United States would regard as acceptable standards; the U.S. message to Canada was thus straightforward: the higher the security walls around Canada, the lower the security wall between Canada and the United States; Canada's prime minister Stephen Harper agrees, and Canada is now working with the United States on harmonizing perimeter security arrangements; some Canadians are unhappy, saying the deal will result in sacrificing cherished Canadian values and practices No other two countries in the world have a larger volume of trade between them as do the United States and Canada. In the first eleven month of 2010, for example, that trade between the two countries reached $480 billion. That trade - and, especially, significant growth of that volume of trade - have been hampered by ever tighter security arrangements the United States has been implementing along the U.S.-Canada border since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We note, though, that not everyone has been impressed with the effectiveness of these security measures. On 1 February this, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a critical report about the Obama administration's effort to secure the U.S.-Canada border, saying that of the 4,000-mile border, the administration has implemented has established an "acceptable level of security" for just thirty-two miles. Still, even if not fully effective and even if not present along every single inch of the border, these security measures have had a chilling effect on trade. These arrangements have increased the costs for trade and travel. Edward Alden notes <http://securitydebrief.com/2010/12/13/us-canada-perimeter-security-in-2011/ > that both commercial truck and passenger car traffic to the United States fell after 9/11 and have never recovered. The weakness in car traffic is particularly striking, because historically a strong Canadian dollar sent shoppers flooding south looking for bargains. Even with the Canadian dollar now at parity with the greenback, that is no longer the case. The main reason the United States has insisted on beefing up border security is that Canadian immigration and customs laws have been judged to be not up to what the United States would regard as acceptable standards. The U.S. message to Canada was thus straightforward: the higher the security walls around Canada, the lower the security wall between Canada and the United States. Alden offers a good summary of the perimeter approach The idea behind perimeter security is that the two governments would cooperate intensively to keep potentially dangerous goods and travelers from entering North America. In turn, greater security from overseas threats would permit streamlining of the northern border inspection regime, which has raised costs for business and discouraged travelers from crossing the U.S.-Canada border. With both the U.S. and Canadian economies growing anemically and facing high unemployment, improving the cross-border business and travel environment has never been more urgent economically Stephen Harper, Canada's prime minister, got the message. During a visit to the White House in early February, Harper and President Barack Obama issued a statement that commits the two countries to work toward setting up a "perimeter" approach to North American security, streamlining regulations on goods crossing the border between the two countries, integrating law enforcement, and co- operating on "critical infrastructure and cyber-security." "Better border management is key to our competitiveness, our job creating, and my goal of doubling U.S. exports," Obama said at a White House news conference with Harper. "It is in both our interests to ensure that our common border remains open and efficient," Harper said at the press conference. "It is just as critical that it remain secure, and in the hands of the vigilant and the dedicated." The details of the perimeter security agreement are still sketchy, but they will include: * Setting common standards for screening incoming cargo before it leaves foreign ports * Improving border infrastructure * Deepening law enforcement cooperation * Creating an integrated entry-exit system for travelers - for Canada, this means adopting and rolling out a US-VISIT style biometric entry system * The two governments will also agree to share much more real time information to help in targeting incoming overseas travelers who should be blocked or deserve extra scrutiny The left-leaning parties in Canada, the Liberals and the NDP, and Canadian privacy advocates oppose this "perimeter" approach the North American security. "This affects our sovereignty," Michael Ignatieff, former leader of the opposition Liberal Party, told reporters. "Everybody wants to make it easier to get goods and services across that border and people across that border but not at the price of Canadian sovereignty on issues like intelligence, on issues like immigration." NDP leader Jack Layton said, "We think that there should be a thorough discussion here about the extent to which he may be compromising our sovereignty. We of course want to work with our friends in the U.S. on issues. But we don't want to compromise our ability to set our own policies." The Council of Canadians has raised concerns about what could be in the perimeter security agreement, and the impacts it would have on civil liberties, privacy, immigration and refugee policies, and Canada's sovereignty. Canadians' reactions to the perimeter security approach The Council of Canadians offers <http://www.canadians.org/campaignblog/?p=7723> a useful summary of what major Canadian papers say about the Obama-Harper approach: Since the Council is critical of the approach, the quotes selected tend to raise questions about the impact the approach would have on cherished Canadian values. The Toronto Star wrote a day or two before the Canadian early May elections: Harper said that if re-elected he will move forward with the "shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness" that he signed with U.S. President Barack Obama on February 4. .If the Tories continue in government, they will push the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council to cut red tape on trade and other matters. But some fear Canadians' privacy will be invaded because Ottawa will share too much of their personal information with Washington. Indeed, the Harper-Obama scheme rings Canada and the U.S. in a single security perimeter, boosting cooperation between Canadian and American police, border, and intelligence services. Because negotiations between Ottawa and Washington are still shrouded in secrecy, it's unclear whether the accord could limit immigration to Canada. That's because the U.S. has tighter controls on immigration than Canada. Last December, the Globe and Mail reported that: The Harper government is bracing for a backlash over a border security agreement it is negotiating with the United States, anticipating it will spark worries about eroding sovereignty and privacy rights, a document obtained by the Globe and Mail shows. The communications strategy for the perimeter security declaration anticipates criticism from civil rights groups and others such as Council of Canadians chairwoman Maude Barlow. In early-February, the Toronto Star reported: The confidential government document (prepared last fall on the perimeter security proposal) contains a list of "high risk" stakeholders - those in Canada who might raise strenuous objections to stepped-up Canada-U.S. security arrangements. Advocacy and civil rights groups such as the Council of Canadians, led by Maude Barlow, were expected to react negatively because of "privacy concerns". The strategy paper suggested that cabinet ministers be made available to the media to counteract Barlow's statements. In mid-February, the Canadian Press reported that an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 91 per cent of Canadians say the negotiations (on perimeter security) should take place in public so that they can see what is on the table. Canadians want Harper to adopt a much more transparent approach to the negotiations which are being held in total secrecy. No other two countries in the world have a larger volume of trade between them as do the United States and Canada; in the first eleven month of 2010, for example, that trade between the two countries reached $480 billion; that trade -- and, especially, significant growth of that volume of trade -- have been hampered by ever tighter security arrangements the United States has been implementing along the U.S.-Canada border since the 9/11 terrorist attacks; the main reason the United States has insisted on beefing up border security is that Canadian immigration and customs laws have been judged to be not up to what the United States would regard as acceptable standards; the U.S. message to Canada was thus straightforward: the higher the security walls around Canada, the lower the security wall between Canada and the United States; Canada's prime minister Stephen Harper agrees, and Canada is now working with the United States on harmonizing perimeter security arrangements; some Canadians are unhappy, saying the deal will result in sacrificing cherished Canadian values and practices In March, a Toronto Star editorial asked: How, exactly, do Harper and Obama define a North American "perimeter?" How would sharing more data on travelers and goods coming into Canada and the U.S. from abroad materially "streamline and decongest" the border, when most traffic originates locally? How would "improved intelligence and information sharing" work? What about "joint threat assessments"? What information would we share? Who defines threats? The U.S. still obtusely regards Maher Arar as a threat, long after he was cleared. How would an "integrated Canada-U.S. entry-exit system" - potentially the most contentious part of this deal - work in practice? How would its exchange of "relevant" data affect privacy? Would a Canadian flying from Toronto to Paris or Cairo, for example, be tracked in some U.S. database? How far would the sharing go? When officials talk about "screening" travelers, what do they envisage, and what biometrics do they propose to rely on? The U.S. has a vast and not always reliable database of red-flagged people. And it's not easy to get off the list. How far would Ottawa go in stepping up "cross-border law enforcement operations"? Does anyone envisage U.S. federal agents arresting suspects here? Also in March, the Globe and Mail reported: The federal government wants members of the public to impart their "shared vision" for the security of the Canada-U.S. perimeter - it just doesn't want to explain what that means. Ottawa-based researcher Ken Rubin used federal Access to Information legislation to ask the Public Safety department for documents related to the definition of the term "perimeter security" in the context of the Canada-U.S. border. The department's response was an unequivocal "no." In a letter written March 4, Public Safety officials said: "The records pertaining to your request have been entirely withheld." The department said the information could be injurious to international affairs, that it contained information developed for a government institution or minister, that it would provide an account of a government consultation, and that it is a matter of cabinet confidence." In mid-April, the Canadian Press reported: Months before the Conservative government dismissed talk of a perimeter security accord with the United States as hearsay, senior officials were quietly discussing a draft of the border agreement. Documents obtained by the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act show federal deputy ministers considered a version of the accord early last September. In December, however, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper called such a deal mere "hearsay" and "speculation." In response, Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow stated, "It is not healthy for the democratic process for this to be happening behind closed doors, in secrecy. It affects the Canadian people and we have a right to hear about it, and it should be part of this election debate. We've heard absolutely nothing about how the talks are going. And I think that Canadians need to demand of this government a more open process." The United States was hoping to include Mexico in a similar arrangement, but the sheer level of violence in that country has so far made this impractical. In the future, though, we may well see a trilateral perimeter security arrangement which includes the United States, Canada, and Mexico - an arrangement which will bring to security relations what NAFTA has brought to economic relations among the three countries. - Read more in Dana Gabriel, "Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration," Infowars.com <http://www.infowars.com/perimeter-security-and-the-future-of-north-american -integration/> (1 March 2011); and Edward Alden, "U.S.-Canada perimeter security in 2011 <http://securitydebrief.com/2010/12/13/us-canada-perimeter-security-in-2011/ > " (13 December 2010) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
